bob
New member
'allo
The fact that ToD is a prequel is one that seems merely an incidental fact that seems quite odd but is easily forgotten.
Yet it is extremely unusual in a series such as Indy for a prequel to be made when there is no obvious reason for it, and there has been precious little comment from fandom on seeing ToD as a prequel as oppossed to a sequel.
So let us try to understand it and analyse the movie from the perspective of a prequel than a sequel for a moment....
Of course it can be argued and it is to a certain extent true that the reason for ToD was set earlier was to avoid the Nazis, this is what GL himself stated at one point. However this for me makes little sense as ToD is set in a completely different part of the world and there is no reason that the plotline of ToD could not work in post 36 setting. Also the script contains anachronistic references to the bombing of Shanghai which would either suggest shabby research or a later intended setting in the original script.
Then does this have something to do with Indys character arc? - had he changed so much following the events of Raiders that he could not be the type of man that was needed for ToD?
A lot has been made about the differences between the Indy of ToD and the rest of the trilogy, emphasising his mercenary nature in dealing with the Chinaese gangsters (Against the international treaty for the preservation of antiquities no doubt) but in Raiders he acts once again as a mercenary for the US government....
There is no obvious difference in the character between movies in my opinion, there is no sign that the confrontation with the Thugees has changed him or shaped him in some way that allowed him to act in the way he did in Raiders. In fact the opposite seems the case, in Raiders he is very sceptical of the Ark initally while in ToD he becomes respectful of at least the spiritual power of the Stones which is a point of view that exists in LC when Indy immediately considers from a painting that perhaps the Grail could exist.
Indys actions in ToD are in fact far better understood in a character arc sense as following on logically from Raiders relatively un-altruisticly hero, to the warm compassionate cleansed crusader of LC.
And thats it....
I must admit that I am a little dissapointed not to find much to appreciate in seeing this movie as a prequel. But that does leave the intriguing question why exactly did GL design the movie as a prequel at all? - or am I wrong and is there some character arc or some proper reason for ToD being a prequel as oppossed to a sequel.
The fact that ToD is a prequel is one that seems merely an incidental fact that seems quite odd but is easily forgotten.
Yet it is extremely unusual in a series such as Indy for a prequel to be made when there is no obvious reason for it, and there has been precious little comment from fandom on seeing ToD as a prequel as oppossed to a sequel.
So let us try to understand it and analyse the movie from the perspective of a prequel than a sequel for a moment....
Of course it can be argued and it is to a certain extent true that the reason for ToD was set earlier was to avoid the Nazis, this is what GL himself stated at one point. However this for me makes little sense as ToD is set in a completely different part of the world and there is no reason that the plotline of ToD could not work in post 36 setting. Also the script contains anachronistic references to the bombing of Shanghai which would either suggest shabby research or a later intended setting in the original script.
Then does this have something to do with Indys character arc? - had he changed so much following the events of Raiders that he could not be the type of man that was needed for ToD?
A lot has been made about the differences between the Indy of ToD and the rest of the trilogy, emphasising his mercenary nature in dealing with the Chinaese gangsters (Against the international treaty for the preservation of antiquities no doubt) but in Raiders he acts once again as a mercenary for the US government....
There is no obvious difference in the character between movies in my opinion, there is no sign that the confrontation with the Thugees has changed him or shaped him in some way that allowed him to act in the way he did in Raiders. In fact the opposite seems the case, in Raiders he is very sceptical of the Ark initally while in ToD he becomes respectful of at least the spiritual power of the Stones which is a point of view that exists in LC when Indy immediately considers from a painting that perhaps the Grail could exist.
Indys actions in ToD are in fact far better understood in a character arc sense as following on logically from Raiders relatively un-altruisticly hero, to the warm compassionate cleansed crusader of LC.
And thats it....
I must admit that I am a little dissapointed not to find much to appreciate in seeing this movie as a prequel. But that does leave the intriguing question why exactly did GL design the movie as a prequel at all? - or am I wrong and is there some character arc or some proper reason for ToD being a prequel as oppossed to a sequel.